You won't see many people actually going and Buying this lens for they're current cameras.

I see this one as a cheaper plasticy (like 100L) 6d kit, lighter weight, smaller size and latest IS vs 24-105. Many people will prefer it and put the $$$ saved into a 70- tele.

Yeah but the 24-105L is already sharp for around 800$ used. This lens would have to be 599$ for it to fly and knowing canon lately, I seriously doubt that.

My guess. DOA.

I agree, however i also thought the 40mm pancake looked weak on paper however for the size, price point and image quality it delivered in spades!now mentioning that little bad boy I cant see much value in a 24-70 f4 vs the 40mm pancake other than IS

its certainly a wierd offering considering the 50mm line so desperately needs an update

its gonna have to be cheap, sub $500 to fly IMO

+1 on the 40 prime as an example of what looks 'meh' on paper (at announcement time) being potentially far more value in actual use. I'm really hoping Canon is speaking to end user benefit somewhere other than the 'horsepower specs' of aperture, length and IS. Crossing my fingers on small size/weight and cost, but I doubt either will be stellar.

+5 on speaking to the 50 prime. The 50 F/1.4 remains a staple for me (despite a host of L lenses I own), and it's from 1993! A bread and butter lens like that should be on a five year refresh cycle.

the potential advantage of course over the 24-105L is that less coverage within one lens should mean better performance. 24-105 range is quite demanding of a zoom to perform equally well at both wide and telephoto ends. i'd expect to see better handling of lens distortion amongst other things. 24-70 range also obviously has no cross over with the 70-200 which i've always liked. i like things tidy

however...i too have held off in the past from buying a 24-105L due to it being 'only' f4. so for me I'd still prefer the 24-70 2.8 ...or of course better yet 2.8 IS.

Also, can someone speak to why the EF-S folks have a $1000 17-55 F/2.8 IS and EF folks are left wanting?

Is making such a lens for a crop that much more technically feasible or inexpensive?

Obviously - a fullframe equivalent would be 27-88mm. That reach is well covered for FF by the 24-70's and the 24-105, especially if you consider that the depth of field of the 17-55@2.8 roughly equals f/4 on FF. And if you'd really want 17mm, you'd be buying a 16-35 for your 2.8 or else the 17-40. The 24-70/2.8 I and the 16-35 I (and the 24-105) were both in the 17-55 price category, the mark II's outperform all of the above and are priced accordingly. Factor in build and weathersealing, and you'd almost think the 17-55 is the overpriced one

Enniehoo, the 24-70/4. Sub-$500 is not going to happen - this L IS-zoom is just no way going to be cheaper than the 2.8 IS primes. So 'cheap' would still mean it needs to compete with the 24-105 and 2nd-hand 24-70/2.8 I's. Doesn't make sense. A high resolution one with IS might make more sense. The only alternative I see is a parfocal STM lens for video, but I'm not sure they'd try to outfit an L with STM already, on the off chance it'll happily sit being a dud next to the DO lenses*. STM will need to prove itself first.

No, I say the new kid's going to perform really good, and it's going to cost a bundle. And it'll probably sell like hotcakes to those who need the best, and even better to those who want the best.

*) Yeahyeahyeah, I'm sure the DO's are good, even very good, they're just not the real deal, what with the weird bokeh

Let me guess...Canon going to charge more for a shorter in lenght(24-105) and slower f-stop(f2. lens.

WOW....their marketing team is getting smarter and smarter everyday.

There will be reasonable explanations for it:1. STM motor2. Better focusing with newer bodies3. Next generation IS4. Better coatings5. Less distortion at 24mmAnd a sentence: "Specially dedicated for photo enthusiast covering focals above 70mm with their 70-200 zooms, this newly developed best in it's class lens is better optimized through it's whole focal range."

Let me guess...Canon going to charge more for a shorter in lenght(24-105) and slower f-stop(f2. lens.

WOW....their marketing team is getting smarter and smarter everyday.

There will be reasonable explanations for it:1. STM motor2. Better focusing with newer bodies3. Next generation IS4. Better coatings5. Less distortion at 24mmAnd a sentence: "Specially dedicated for photo enthusiast covering focals above 70mm with their 70-200 zooms, this newly developed best in it's class lens is better optimized through it's whole focal range."

Let me guess...Canon going to charge more for a shorter in lenght(24-105) and slower f-stop(f2. lens.

WOW....their marketing team is getting smarter and smarter everyday.

There will be reasonable explanations for it:1. STM motor2. Better focusing with newer bodies3. Next generation IS4. Better coatings5. Less distortion at 24mmAnd a sentence: "Specially dedicated for photo enthusiast covering focals above 70mm with their 70-200 zooms, this newly developed best in it's class lens is better optimized through it's whole focal range."

Let me guess...Canon going to charge more for a shorter in lenght(24-105) and slower f-stop(f2. lens.

WOW....their marketing team is getting smarter and smarter everyday.

There will be reasonable explanations for it:1. STM motor2. Better focusing with newer bodies3. Next generation IS4. Better coatings5. Less distortion at 24mmAnd a sentence: "Specially dedicated for photo enthusiast covering focals above 70mm with their 70-200 zooms, this newly developed best in it's class lens is better optimized through it's whole focal range."

They can't even do that on 24-70 f2.8 II - A $2300 LENS

It may be easier in F4 lens for 1399$

They better make a superb 24-105 f/4L IS II if they want us to think seriously of it. Just my opinion...